The right to trial by jury has been enshrined in in English law for centuries. It can be traced back to Magna Carta of 1215, if not further. It is a logical outworking of our excellent system of Common Law, which seeks to act in the interest of the people, rather than the state. Essentially, innocence or guilt is decided by ordinary people who weigh up the evidence on either side.
Jury trials are far less widely used in some countries whose legal systems are based on Roman/ Continental law. Indeed, on the Continent, hearsay evidence is allowed, and you can be tried in absentia - in other words, without being physically present. Our legal system is far superior.
However, occasionally it returns a verdict that some people don't like. This was the case yesterday when a jury decided that the police firearms officer who shot Mark Duggan dead in London two years ago had "lawfully killed" him.
No one can feel other than sadness at the tragic loss of a young life, but the bottom line is that on the balance of evidence, twelve ordinary men and women decided that "lawful killing" was what the evidence pointed to. It was therefore inappropriate in the extreme for members of Mr Duggan's family to abuse the jurors, or for Labour MP Diane Abbott to say she was "baffled" by the verdict.
If someone is unhappy with the outcome of a verdict, there is, in many cases, the right of appeal. If Mr. Duggan's family wish to take this route, it is their right under our legal system for them to do so. However, the bottom line is that unless a future appeals court overturns the verdict, our legal system has functioned as it should, and the jurors should not be abused for doing their job to the best of their ability.